netdev - Re: e1000: backport ich9 support from 7.5.5 ?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <468684E1.6080901@intel.com>
Date:	Sat, 30 Jun 2007 09:29:21 -0700
From:	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
To:	James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
CC:	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>,
	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>,
	Andrew Grover <andy.grover@...il.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Jason Lunz <lunz@...lexsecurity.com>,
	Mark McLoughlin <markmc@...hat.com>,
	e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: e1000: backport ich9 support from 7.5.5 ?

James Chapman wrote:
> Kok, Auke wrote:
>> Jeff Garzik wrote:
>>> Can knowledgeable people characterize the PCIe adapters somehow?  Is 
>>> that "ICH8-era and later", or does it go back further than that?
>> ich8 and 9 are consistent with 82571/2/3 - on-board nic's based on the 
>> 82571 design with different PHY's, and added features for the newer 
>> demands. A driver split here would be possible but not justified IMHO.
>>
>  > if you want a quick view of features by chipset type, open the patch
>  > and search forward to /e1000_setup_flags/.
> 
> I briefly looked over your new driver. I think it might benefit by 
> moving common parts into one or more libraries (or modules) and have 
> separate chip-specific drivers for 82540, 82541, 82542, 82543, 82571 
> etc. Put all the chip-specific bits in a chip-specific driver and have 
> each driver call into the common (shared) code. The device 
> probe/init/remove would be done by the chip-specific code, not the 
> common code like it is now. When built as a module, the chip-specific 
> parts and the common parts could be built as separate modules; modprobe 
> would load the common parts automatically. Most of the code would be in 
> the common part since these chips are very similar.

splitting beyond the obvious does not make any sense and will just add 
confusion. I'm not against a pcie/pre-pcie split or even going a step further 
and looking into using PHYlib as you suggest below, but we should really avoid 
trying to create an unmaintainable mess where we have to patch 7 drivers for 
each generic issue we find.

> Doing the above would lead naturally to a series of patches which will 
> make it easier to review. When Intel release a new device variant in the 
> future, it might be supported by a new, small driver rather than needing 
> modifications to one big monolith. Also, the kernel would be loaded with 
> only the code it needed to support the specific device(s) present.
> 
> BTW, since you're doing a major update, would it be a good time to 
> switch to phylib to manage your PHYs?

well, PHYlib might help, so I'm not negative against doing that right now. It 
will be quite some work.

Auke

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html